News:

http://FreeFromFuel.com HHO DVD reduced to only 29.90 Euros. Get it now..Please also make sure you have a valid email Adress over here in your profile, because we need to send out an important Newsletter in Mid of February and you might miss it then...Stay tuned !

If it works, get a company to fund you, and share the patent with me for credibility.

Keep my e-mail: contact (at) nathancoppedge (dot) com in case you need input on constructing, and to notify me of progress, and if it has been built etc.

This would also make an excellent, although labor-intensive science project, perhaps at college level (it helps to have welding tools, which I do not have experience with. I have found cardboard constructions work for successful partial experiments, but not full models. Just some tips).

If it works, get a company to fund you, and share the patent with me for credibility.

Keep my e-mail: contact (at) nathancoppedge (dot) com in case you need input on constructing, and to notify me of progress, and if it has been built etc.

This would also make an excellent, although labor-intensive science project, perhaps at college level (it helps to have welding tools, which I do not have experience with. I have found cardboard constructions work for successful partial experiments, but not full models. Just some tips).

Actually, the explanation you got there is not necessary. Energy of a weight in a given altitude is first of all potential - because something or someone lifted it up there. If you lower the position to a lower altitude, you get that amount of energy back.Recycling potential and kinetic energy is in perfect balance that is only outbalanced by friction. So the event will finally stop.

Actually, the explanation you got there is not necessary. Energy of a weight in a given altitude is first of all potential - because something or someone lifted it up there. If you lower the position to a lower altitude, you get that amount of energy back.Recycling potential and kinetic energy is in perfect balance that is only outbalanced by friction. So the event will finally stop.

2. Ball weight moves upwards slightly along track because it is supported and the weights are approximately equal.

3. Ball weight has ability to lower counterweight from a slightly lower base position, due to its mass and the continuing force / momentum of the previous counterweight and the high midpoint of the ball weight.

4. Ball weight can lift next counterweight because it is now unsupported.

5. ...

Do you see what I mean?

What do you see here that does not work? I am open to suggestions.

Do you think there is inputted MOVEMENT? There isn't.

Do you think the approximately 1:1 ratio means it does not work? It does!

Do you think that the ball weight moves downwards rather than upwards? It doesn't. It has been tested with a level.

In conclusion, I think you are wrong to question this specific device, as rare as that phenomena might be.]

My Dad has a Yale PhD. my mother was a valedictorian in college, my brother was a computer programming prodigy, and both my grandfathers were engineers.

So have a little respect!

For once it might be the real deal! Don't fish around!

All of it except the lifting of the next lever from a lower base and higher midpoint is proven by this experiment:

What you demostrate here is that you can get more kinetic energy than the available potential energy. Ofcourse that is not possible.

I can see how you think, but what you think is the right thought, the nature will prove you wrong. Every construction that is suppose to work using gravitational forces, will not work because the mass in the objects and the force of gravity is the same all the time. Therfor you will never gain more kinetic energy than the available potential energy.

Also have in mind that you CAN lift a heavy weight with a light weight if the light weight is further from the pivot point than the heavy weight. However, the small weight must compensate its weight with longer travel than the heavy weight.

If the balls have weights of 1kg and 2kg, and you want to lift the 2kg weight with the 1kg weight, the 1kg weight must go down 1 meter to lift 2kg 0.5m upwards. If you multiply weight with the distance traveled, you get the same amount of energy.

The key is to calculate energy, not only the forces and weights. Then you will soon enough see that the equation adds up in zero energy output.

I think to prove this theory it would require two working sections where the first ball is rolled off the end of a ramp and rolls a ball to the end of it's ramp and drops to activate the next stage.The balls must also be staged in the next operational position after the event to show that continuation was achieved.

Maybe you could make a guide from a tube showing the weight of the ball will by itself compress the lever arm and then roll to a height higher than where it started.This would show that the weight of a single ball could in fact raise itself to a greater height with the assistance of the ramp.

If you lower the position to a lower altitude, you get that amount of energy back.Recycling potential and kinetic energy is in perfect balance that is only outbalanced by friction. So the event will finally stop.Vidar

Actually, in my design the counterweight remains at a higher altitude, and the modular units are horizontally-arranged, not vertically-arranged, so perhaps there is an advantage from this, as well as other factors. It does not need to lose all the potential energy it uses, because it is all basically expressed in mass through the use of counterweights.

1. I can see how you think, but what you think is the right thought, the nature will prove you wrong. Every construction that is suppose to work using gravitational forces, will not work because the mass in the objects and the force of gravity is the same all the time. Therfor you will never gain more kinetic energy than the available potential energy.

2. Also have in mind that you CAN lift a heavy weight with a light weight if the light weight is further from the pivot point than the heavy weight. However, the small weight must compensate its weight with longer travel than the heavy weight.

Vidar

On (1) I think you're over-generalizing.

On (2) clever ratios are what I have already considered in my design. It is a pre-requisite.

THERE IS NO RULE AGAINST LIFTING ONE END FROM EQUILIBRIUM OF WEIGHTS. THE DESIGN PERMITS THE MARBLE TO HAVE A HIGHER MIDPOINT THAN THE START ALTITUDE. DO YOU SEE ANY BARRIERS? NO ONE HAS MENTIONED ANY REAL PROBLEMS WITH THE DESIGN---SINCE IT HAS MOMENTUM FROM REST AS PROVEN BY THE VIDEOS.

Are you still building your "overunity" devices out of cardboard, and making your "measurements" with carpenter's levels and children's rulers?

The video has an obvious flaw that isn't really a flaw.

While in the Successful Over-Unity Experiment 1 it looks like the marble would not be able to regain the altitude it lost, in the actual design the marble would apply itself to the next lever without lifting the first lever again. Instead, the first lever is lifted just once, from the high point of the lever before that. The actual change of altitude is small, as most of the motion occurs horizontally in a loop. Arguably, if the marble can lift one lever at the beginning point it can easily lift another at the end-point.